Personally, I'd be happy if they included only minimal DM support at the initial release, I don't plan on playing anything but the SP for probably two months after its release (over and over and over...my girlfriend is gonna hate that game). Instead of trying to balance the building of both the single player and the multiplayer experience all at once (like Valve did with Half-Life), I think they should totally focus on single player for the initial commercial release, and then spend the next two or three months really digging into some cooler features for multiplayer (CTF, Last Man Standing, maybe a MatrixMoves mod like in UT, that sort of thing).

Todays shooters definitely need multiplayer capability. I think they should include a good, basic multiplayer support and then feature the best community made levels/mods with coming pointreleases or free addon packs.

The multiplayer base should include:

-Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch and CTF code base,
-A couple of professional designed deathmatch maps,
-At least 1 male and 1 female player model with different skins, maybe some kind of "demon" player model too,
-Bots (with basic deathmatch and CTF support)
-A good in-game browser,
-An easy to use level editor for everything else!

I'll agree to the statement that multiplayer is needed, I just think that single player should get the lion's share of the initial development. Mods, models, skins, levels, and the like can all be developed and released after the fact, and they don't usually require as much money or manpower as the whole project.

Ouch. You think you respect an admin, then he burns your logic with BETTER logic. Damn you.

Ok, Deus Ex is a good example. There was zero mp support in the initial release, so it was doomed to remain single player. Of course, the single player experience kicked ass, so I think that I'm at least partially right in my claim that the more time spent focused on one aspect of the game (by id anyway), the better that aspect will be in the gold ship.

Now, by NO MEANS do (or did I) say that there shouldn't be multiplayer. I just want to see a decent single player game come out (I don't have 'net access on PHOBOS, and the comp I do surf on is about as fast molasses dripping out of a closed bottle), since the last big one from id was, what, DOOM II? Oh sure, Q2 had a single player story, and a pretty good one at that, but I was not a huge fan of Q2 to begin with.

Nothing more than Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch and maybe a raw form of unsupported Coop. Let the CTF, TF, Realism, Action, RA and stuff be made by those who have been upgrading the Quake experience since the first one.

I don't think iD has to go overboard with multiplayer. I think at the release date doom should have only dm, tdm, and some damn good coop. Maybe some bots or a mp training mission. With some standered dm levels, they should be good beings the d00d who made the quake 2 maps are doing these maps. It would be nice to see a balanced weapon, health, and armor structour, not like quake...degenerating heath and armor was gay.

It would also be nice to see some new stuff in multiplayer, like the new stuff in quake 3. Example: Jump pads, accel pads. Not them but something new.

1 & 4.
Let 'em take the time to make a fantastic single-player experience, afterwards they should bring out a level-editer, some basic stuff, and you'll see that in a short period great mods will flood doomworld.

Yes and no, as far as multiplayer goes iD came into their new project with multiplayer totally in mind (this was the fabled "Quest"). Then they totally changed to SP focus when they decided to make doom3.

Look at iD's track record: Their last tow games were very much multiplayer oriented, with quake1 and the doom series having a slight multiplayer tinge to it. It would be hard to belive that doom3 wouldn't have multiplayer action in it.

Doom3 will have a strong Single Player element to it (which means that they need to get the damn storyline straight). But unfortunatly, as is with most SP-focused games, they tend to get boring after awhile (esp when you beat it lots of times and know where all the items are... then you only play it to find any secrets you missed). Even with their own communities, creating extras like maps and stuff, it can get a little old.

The solution to keeping games young and "sprite" (no pun intended), is Deathmatch - people killing each other never gets old for some reason (game AI can get predicatable regardless of how advacned it is, humans are sort-of predicatble but can be interacted with in more of a sense than bots can). I mean, Quake2, as a single player game is pretty much dust, who here plays SP Q2 without any of the mappacks just because it's fun and entertaining (for me it got boring after beating it about 2 times). But Q2 is very much alive when it comes to multiplayer.

Unfortunatly making a game more complex and intuitive, with a deeper storyline and more levels only serves to prolong the game's pain when it comes to getting boring. It only serves to make the game either more boring (if it gets repetitive), or higher quality, and doesnt really make the game fun to enjoy for very much longer.

I believe the only reason why doom (or doom2) has lasted as long as it has is because when it came out it was at the top of the pile as far as FPS's go. It was a memorable experience when we installed the thing and first ran it... the environment was unlike anything we had seen before in computer games. But when doom3 comes out, I dont think it will have the same guarantee of freshness that the orignial doom series had - mostly in part that we have had fully 3D archetecture FPS's out for quite awhile, and doom3 will have to be as easy to play as doom1/2 was because frustrating games tend to get older quicker (because it's a little of a pain to use so many controls at once).

Doom didnt really have any problems with gameplay at all. The monsters didnt kill you very quickly if you didn't let them, and most shots could be avoided. Safety in numbers was the enemy's key to defeating you (and some environmetal reasons as well). Even a cyberdemon might pale in comparison to 20 imps fully surrounding you (you might escape if you have a really good weapon and alot of health).

The quake series didnt share this same style of gameplay. In quake1 most of the enemies took multiple shots to kill - even the troopers. Safety in numbers wasnt a concern because it was easy to escape from crowds and the limitations of the engine made it a point to not have many enemies next to each other.

Quake2 had a simple problem with the actualy combat with the enemy - for some reason the stroggos soldiers always seem to have excellent accuracy. Even the guards with their portable shotguns and machineguns were a match because they could do lots of damage in a small amount of time because nearly every one of their shots hit you. Not to mention that most of the enemies were hard to hit because of a low cross-sectional hitscan area unlike Quake1 or doom monsters, this sort-of made the game frustrating because you could miss by an inch and it might as well have been a mile (this did sort-of improve all of our accuracys with railguns and such though).

Quake3's weapon balance was horrible, weapons that were supposed to do lots of damage didn't, and the ones that were supposed to do alot fires way too quickly. Plus there was the issue of where *ARE* the clips for weapons like the shotgun and rocket launcher (more of an aesthetic issue). Plus there was the hit-scan issue again.

Quake3's weapon balance was horrible, weapons that were supposed to do lots of damage didn't, and the ones that were supposed to do alot fires way too quickly. Plus there was the issue of where *ARE* the clips for weapons like the shotgun and rocket launcher (more of an aesthetic issue). Plus there was the hit-scan issue again.

Why does everyone wants to have balanced weapons in games? No, seriously. What's the deal? I collect weapons that are supposedly BETTER than the ones I had before in order to survive. There's absolutely no reason why should a machinegun be balanced with a rocket launcher, or a BFG, wich in Q3A is the most effective version of BFG ever.

Ok, I'll cede effectiveness, but I've always been a fan of the original anyway, just because it's so easy to use on people who don't know how it works.

Which is funnier: the look on someone's face when you plaster their brains across a wall with a visible projectile, or the look on someone's face when, for no easy discernible reason, their face was suddenly turned into a thicky substance roughly the same consistency as Jello pudding?

Well, I want the old style back. But it doesn't cut anymore. Or they make a giantic splash on impact, or a trail, or a faster blob of plasma, or maybe more cooler destruction...i don't know. But the slo-mo missile behavior doesn't work anymore. Everyone knows how a BFG works, and everybody has used one.

I introduced a lot of people at my college to DOOM this past semester, and I can say without a doubt that not ONE of them has the SLIGHTEST idea how that gun works, as evidenced by the fact that I was killed ONCE with it. The ENTIRE DAMN SEMESTER.

As for speeding it up or whatnot, yeah, that would be a good idea. Or, keep the ball at the same slow speed and have the tracers move ahead first.

Quake3's weapon balance was horrible, weapons that were supposed to do lots of damage didn't, and the ones that were supposed to do alot fires way too quickly.

I donīt know a game that has better balanced weapons in multiplayer than Quake3, and yes, I still play it every day. Every weapon has itīs special strengthīs and weaknesses, itīs balanced out almost perfect. The only un-balanced weapon is the BFG, but itīs just included in 3 maps! And you wonīt find it in most custom maps.

Gauntlet: if you can get cose enough it deals a very effective ammount of damage

Machinegun: start weapon, fairly weak, but instant hits, medium accuracy and high rate of fire ---> usefull both for short and long range combat, thatīs what a start weapon has to be!

Shotgun: most effective on short range, long reload time, inaccurate on long range, but still usefull because of isntant hit projectiles!

Grenade launcher: the only weapon which could be a bit better (Quake1 GL was better), because the grenades bounce too wildly, but it can be damn usefull in certain maps.

Except the BFG, and the special role of Gauntlet and MG, there is no weapon superior to the other in every situation. Thatīs what I call balanced. The cobination of weapons makes the simple deathmatch more interesting introduces strategy. For example, use the railgun on long range, then quickly finish it with some machinegun bullets after a hit. Push someone into the air with rocketsplash, then catch him with the lightning, things like that.

Also If you could setup up a cWouldoop Game and somehow set
The Doom 3 Story To Include all players involved...
Like this maybe:
First Level
Original Mission: We're under attack, All Personnel get to the Evac Zone. We Are Pulling out.

Co-Op Mission: (Ship Crashlanding) Aww Shit, Corporal, you're out of luck, We can't get any help to you or you buddies for at least 12 hours, Get to the Safe Zone, We Can Try and pick you up there. Corporal, Another thing: SURVIVE! We are gonna need all of you.

That Could Be Good, however the only drawback is once you died you are out. until they start a new game.

Although given above draw back, maybe that would make players more desperate to survive and as you "lose" actual buddys instead of A.I buddies, making it all the more effective to throw a monster on you when you are alone.